Transgenic plants expressing L3 delta proteins are resistant to trichothecene fungal toxins

ABSTRACT

Disclosed are specific mutants of L3 and transgenic plants that produce them. The plants exhibit increased resistance to fungal toxins that target ribosomal L3 protein. Also disclosed are transgenic plants that co-produce L3 mutant and an RIP protein, and exhibit increased resistance to various fungal toxins and viruses, while reducing toxicity normally associated with production of the RIP. Uses of the L3 mutants in animals are further disclosed.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S.Provisional Patent Application No. 60/529,348 filed Dec. 12, 2003, thedisclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH

The development of this invention was supported in part by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture grant USDA-RS-58-5325-758. Therefore,the Government may have certain rights in the invention.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The subject of plant protection against pathogens remains the area ofutmost importance in agriculture. Many commercially valuableagricultural crops are prone to infection by plant viruses and fungicapable of inflicting significant damage to a crop in a given season,and drastically reducing its economic value. The reduction in economicvalue to the farmer in turn results in a higher cost of goods toultimate purchasers.

Fungal pathogens contribute significantly to the most severe pathogenoutbreaks in plants. Plants have developed a natural defense system,including morphological modifications in their cell walls, and synthesisof various anti-pathogenic compounds. See, e.g. Boller, et al., PlantPhysiol. 74:442-444 (1984); Bowles, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 59:873-907(1990); Joosten, et al., Plant Physiol. 89:945-951 (1989); Legrand, etal., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84:6750-6754 (1987); and Roby, et al.,Plant Cell 2:999-1007 (1990). Several pathogenesis-related (PR) proteinshave been shown to have anti-fungal properties and are induced followingpathogen infection. These are different forms of hydrolytic enzymes,such as chitinases and β-1,3-glucanases that inhibit fungal growth invitro by destroying fungal cell walls. See, e.g. Boller, et al., supra;Grenier, et al., Plant Physiol. 103:1277-123 (1993); Leah, et al., J.Biol. Chem. 266:1464-1573 (1991); Mauch, et al., Plant Physiol.87:325-333 (1988); and Sela-Buurlage Buurlage, et al., Plant Physiol.101:857-863 (1993).

Several attempts have been made to enhance the pathogen resistance ofplants via recombinant methodologies using genes encodingpathogenesis-related proteins (such as chitinases and β-1,3-glucanases)with distinct lytic activities against fungal cell walls. See, e.g.,Broglie, et al., Science 254:1194-1197 (1991); Vierheilig, et al., Mol.Plant-Microbe Interact. 6:261-264 (1993); and Zhu, et al.,Bio/Technology 12:807-812 (1994). Recently, two other classes of geneshave been shown to have potential in conferring disease resistance inplants. Wu, et al., Plant Cell 7:1357-1368 (1995), reports that atransgenic potato expressing the Aspergillus niger glucose oxidase geneexhibited increased resistance to Erwinia carotovora and Phytophthorainfestans. The hypothesis is that the glucose oxidase-catalyzedoxidation of glucose produces hydrogen peroxide, which when accumulatesin plant tissues, leads to the accumulation of active oxygen species,which in turn, triggers production of various anti-pathogen andanti-fungal mechanisms such as phytoalexins (see Apostol, et al., PlantPhysiol. 90:109-116 (1989) and Degousee, Plant Physiol. 104:945-952(1994)), pathogenesis-related proteins (Klessig, et al., Plant Mol.Biol. 26:1439-1458 (1994)), strengthening of the plant cell wall(Brisson, et al., Plant Cell 6:1703-1712 (1994)), induction of systemicacquired resistance by salicylic acid (Chen, et al., Science162:1883-1886 (1993)), and hypersensitive defense response (Levine, etal., Cell 79:583-593 (1994)).

In addition to the studies on virus resistance in plants, ribosomeinactivating proteins (RIPs) have been studied in conjunction withfungal resistance. For example, Logeman, et al., Bio/Technology10:305-308 (1992), report that an RIP isolated from barley endospermprovided protection against fungal infection to transgenic tobaccoplants. The combination of barley endosperm RIP and barley class-IIchitinase has provided synergistic enhancement of resistance toRhizoctonia solani in tobacco, both in vitro and in vivo. See, e.g.,Lea, et al., supra; Mauch, et al., supra; Zhu, et al., supra; and Jach,et al., The Plant Journal 8:97-109 (1995). PAP, however, has not shownantifungal activity in vitro. See Chen, et al., Plant Pathol. 40:612-620(1991), which reports that PAP has no effect on the growth of the fungiPhytophthora infestans, Colletotrichum coccodes, fusarium solani,fusarium sulphureum, Phoma foreata and Rhizoctonia solani in vitro.

Lodge, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:7089-7093 (1993), reportthe Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of tobacco with acDNA encoding wild-type pokeweed antiviral protein (PAP) and theresistance of the transgenic tobacco plants to unrelated viruses.Pokeweed antiviral protein (PAP) is a 29-kDa ribosome inactivatingprotein that catalytically removes two adenines and a guanine from thesarcin/ricin (S/R) loop of the large rRNA (Endo et al., J. Biol. Chem.263:8735-8739 (1988); Hudak et al., J. Biol. Chem. 274:3859-3864(2000)and disrupts binding of elongation factors to the ribosome (Montanaro etal., Biochemical J. 146:127-131(1975); Osborn et al., European J. ofBiocham. 193:401-407 (1990)). Aside from this demonstration of broadspectrum resistance to viruses, it has been demonstrated that whenexpressed in transgenic plants, PAP also confers broad spectrumantifungal (Zoubenko et al., Nature Biotechnol. 15:922-996 (1997);Zoubenko et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 44:219-229 (2000)) activity. It hasalso been shown that PAP recognizes its ribosomal substrate by bindingto L3 (Hudak et al., J. Biol. Chem. 274:3858-3864 (1999)).

Lodge also reports, however, that the PAP-expressing tobacco plants(i.e., above 10 ng/mg protein) tended to have a stunted, mottledphenotype, and that other transgenic tobacco plants that accumulated thehighest levels of PAP were sterile. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,756,322 and5,880,322 teach PAP mutants that when produced in plants exhibit lesstoxicity than wild-type PAP and exhibit biological activities (e.g.,resistance to viruses, fungi and other pests) akin to wild-type PAP. Ithas also been reported that PAP II and PAP II mutants exhibit reducedphytotoxicity compared to wild-type PAP. See Wang, et al., Plant Mol.Biol. 38:957-964 (1998).

The trichothecenes are a family of low molecular weight sesquiterpenoidmycotoxins synthesized by various Fusarium species of fungi.Deoxynivalenol (DON) produced by F. graminearum or F. culmorum thatcauses fusarium head scab of wheat is a worldwide problem for humanhealth concern and poses a major impact on animal production if presentin feeds (Miller et al., Nat. Toxins 5:234-237 (1997)). Othertrichothecenes include fusarenon X, trichothecin, verrucarin A,nivalenol, trichodermin, T-2 toxin and diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS).Trichothecenes inhibit peptidyl transferase reaction of proteinsynthesis by binding to the 60S ribosomal subunit. In addition, theycause membrane damage (Feinberg et al., C. S. 1989. Biochemicalmechanism of actions of trichothecene mycotoxins. Pages 27-36 in:Trichothecene mycotoxixosis: Pathophysiological effects, Vol. 1. V. R.Beasley, ed. Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press. Khachatourians, Canad. J.Physiol. Pharm. 68:1004-1008 (1990); Miller et al., Nat. Toxins5:234-237 (1997)). Mitterbauer et al., 7^(th) International Congress ofPlant Pathology, Edinburgh, Scotland, 5.4.6. (1998) demonstrate thattrichothecene resistance in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, couldresult from either alterations in the target of trichothecenes, theribosomal protein L3 or the increased drug efflux due to over-expressionof a membrane transporter protein encoded by the PDR5 gene.

L3 is a highly conserved ribosomal protein that participates in theformation of the peptidyltransferase center that in turn allowselongation of the ribosome along the messenger RNA (mRNA). Hampl, etal., J. Biol. Chem. 256:2284-2288 (1981); Noller, J. Bacteriol.175:5297-5300 (1993). L3 also plays an essential role in the catalysisof peptide bond formation. See, Green, et al., Annu. Rev. Biochem.66:679-716 (1997). This is an essential step in protein synthesis inyeast, animals and higher plants. L3 is encoded by the rpl3 gene.Trichodermin, a substituted 12,13-epoxytrichothecene, is known toinhibit peptide bond formation by binding to the peptidyl transferasecenter. A mutation in the Rpl3 gene, designated tcm-1, which contains asingle amino acid substitution of tryptophan to cysteine at position 255(i.e., W255C) was initially identified in yeast by conferring resistanceto trichodermin (Fried, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:238-242(1981)). U.S. Pat. No. 6,060,646 to Harris, et al., teaches modifiedpeptidyl transferase (L3) genes that provide resistance to trichothecenemycotoxins, such as the tcm-1 gene. Transgenic plants transformed withgenes encoding L3 proteins are disclosed in WO 00/39291. The L3 proteinsinclude wild-type L3, spontaneously occurring mutants and othernon-naturally occurring mutants. It also teaches plants transformed withL3 genes and genes encoding ribosome inactivating proteins such as PAP.

Studies by Muhitch et al., Plant Science 157:201-207 (2000) demonstratedthat tobacco plants transformed with either the Saccharomyces cerevisiaegene PDR5, which encodes a multi-drug transporter, or with the Fusariumsporotrichioides gene TRI101, which encodes a trichothecene3-O-acetyltransferase, showed increased tolerance to the trichothecene4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS). Even more recently, Harris et al.,Physiol. Mol. Plant Path. 58:173-181 (2001), showed that transgenictobacco tissues transformed with a modified Rpl3 gene from ricedisplayed resistance to DON.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

U.S. Pat. No. 6,060,646 to Harris, et al., teaches that the entire areabetween amino acid residues 240-263 of the L3 gene (which Harris refersto as the peptidyl transferase gene) is highly conserved in rice,Arabidopsis, yeast, bovines, humans, mice and rats, and is critical fromthe standpoint of conferring resistance to trichothecenes. It alsoteaches an L3 mutant, tcm-1, which results in an amino acid change atposition 255 (W255C) in L3 that confers resistance to the trichothecenemycotoxin, thus substantiating this belief.

Applicants have discovered that N-terminal fragments of L3 that do notcontain this region, when produced in plants, provide increasedresistance to fungi, especially Fusarium, that produce trichothecenes.The N-terminal fragments of L3 do not contain the tcm-1 mutation(resulting in the amino acid change, W255C) in L3 that confersresistance to the trichothecene mycotoxin. Applicants have alsodiscovered that expression of the N-terminal L3 fragments in transgenicplants confers better resistance to trichothecene mycotoxins than thefull length L3 gene, and that co-expression of these fragments and aribosome inactivating protein (RIP) such as pokeweed antiviral protein(PAP) serves to reduce or eliminate the toxicity associated withexpression of the RIP. As a result, RIPs such as wild type PAP proteincan be expressed at much higher levels in plants containing theN-terminal fragments of L3 than in plants containing the wild type PAPgene alone. Applicants discovered in the presence of the L3 N-terminalpolypeptides, PAP does not auto-regulate i.e., degrade, its own mRNA,which results in higher expression levels and thus greater resistance todiseases caused by fungi, and that PAP does not depurinate the RNA ofthe cell, resulting in less toxicity to the cell.

Accordingly, a first aspect of the present invention is directed to atransgenic plant comprising an exogenous nucleic acid (i.e., a nucleicacid in addition to the native genome of the host) comprising atransgene functional therein and that encodes a polypeptide having atleast the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of afull-length eucaryotic L3 protein, or an analog of said polypeptide,wherein said plant exhibits increased resistance to toxins that targeteucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to a non-transgenic controlplant. Such toxins include trichothecene mycotoxins, e.g.,deoxynivalenol (DON) and 4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS). In someembodiments, the plant is cereal crop plant, e.g., maize, wheat, barley,rice and oat. In some embodiments, the polypeptide contains from atleast the first 21 to 99 N-terminal amino acids, and in otherembodiments, the polypeptide contains the first 100 N-terminal aminoacids of a eurcaryotic ribosomal L3 protein. In some embodiments, thepolypeptide has an amino acid sequence that corresponds to the yeast,rice, Arabidopsis or a tobacco L3 protein. In some embodiments, theexogenous nucleic acid further contains another transgene that encodes aRIP that targets a euraryotic ribosomal L3 protein, such as PAP, PAP-v,PAP II, ricin or a Shiga toxin. Seed generated from the transgenicplants are also provided.

A second aspect of the present invention is directed to a protoplasttransformed with an exogenous nucleic acid having a transgene encoding apolypeptide having at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal aminoacid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analogthereof, wherein expression of the transgene in a transgenic plantgenerated from the transformed protoplast provides greater resistance totoxins that target a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to anon-transgenic control plant. In some embodiments, the exogenous nucleicacid further comprises a transgene encoding a RIP protein that targets aeurcaryotic L3 ribosomal protein. The two transgenes can be introducedinto the protoplast together by way of a single vector, or separately.Compositions containing the protoplasts and a suitable (e.g., culture orregeneration) medium, and callus derived from the protoplasts are alsoprovided.

A third aspect of the present invention is directed to plant tissuetransformed with an exogenous nucleic acid having a transgene encoding apolypeptide having at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal aminoacid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analogthereof, wherein expression of the nucleic acid in a transgenic plantgenerated from the transformed plant tissue provides greater resistanceto toxins that target a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to anon-transgenic control plant. In some embodiments, the exogenous nucleicacid further comprises a transgene encoding a RIP protein that targets aeurcaryotic L3 ribosomal protein. Compositions containing the planttissue and a suitable (e.g., culture or regeneration) medium are alsoprovided.

A fourth aspect of the present invention is directed to a vectorfunctional in plant cells (e.g., suitable for use in transformingplants, or parts thereof such as protoplasts and plant tissue and whichis replicable and viable therein), comprising a first nucleic acidfragment comprising a first promoter functional in a plant cell inoperable association with a first nucleic acid encoding a polypeptidehaving at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residuesof a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analog thereof. In someembodiments, the vector further contains a second nucleic acid fragmentencoding an RIP protein e.g., PAP, that targets a eurcaryotic ribosomalL3 protein, in operable association with a second promoter functional ina plant cell, wherein the first and second promoters may be the same ordifferent.

A fifth aspect of the present invention is directed to a method ofmaking a transgenic plant having increased resistance to infestation byfungi that produce toxins that target a eurcaryotic L3 protein, e.g.,trichothecene-producing fungi that produce deoxynivalenol (DON) or4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), comprising preparing a transgenic planthaving a genome that contains an exogenous nucleic acid comprising atransgene encoding a polypeptide having at least the first 21 to about99 N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 proteinor an analog thereof, wherein expression of the transgene in thetransgenic plant confers increased resistance to toxins that target aeucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to a non-transgenic controlplant.

A sixth aspect of the present invention is directed to a method ofmaking a transgenic plant having resistance to infestation by fungi thatproduce toxins that target a eurcaryotic L3 protein, e.g., trichothecenemycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) and 4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS),comprising preparing a transgenic plant having a genome that contains afirst exogenous nucleic acid having a first transgene encoding apolypeptide having at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal aminoacid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analogthereof, and a second exogenous nucleic acid having a second transgeneencoding an RIP protein that targets a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein,wherein expression of the first and second transgenes in the transgenicplant confers increased resistance to the fungi, and with less toxicityto the plant compared to a transgenic control plant that contains thesecond transgene but does not contain the first transgene.

A further aspect of the present invention is directed to a transgenicnon-human animal comprising an exogenous nucleic acid having a transgeneencoding a polypeptide having at least the first 21 to about 99N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein oran analog thereof, wherein expression of the transgene in the animalprovides increased resistance toxins that target a eucaryotic ribosomalL3 protein e.g., trichothecene mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) and4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), compared to a non-transgenic controlnon-human animal.

A further aspect of the present invention is directed to apharmaceutical composition for treating fungal infections caused ormediated by a fungal toxin that targets a eucaryotic L3 ribosomalprotein, comprising an anti-fungal effective amount of a polypeptidehaving at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residuesof a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analog thereof, and apharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

A further aspect of the present invention is directed to a method ofreducing toxicity associated with a ribosome inactivating protein (RIP)that targets a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein, in an animal in needthereof, comprising administering to an animal in need thereof, acomposition comprising an effective amount of a polypeptide having atleast the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of afull-length eucaryotic L3 protein, or an analog thereof. In someembodiments, the RIP is PAP, e.g., wild type PAP. The L3 polypeptide oranalog thereof can be administered prior to, simultaneous with or afteradministration of the RIP, such that it is present in animal or human toexert its anti-cytotoxic effect of or on the RIP. In some embodiments,the RIP is conjugated to a ligand that binds a receptor present on or inthe target cell. The methods are particularly useful in the treatment ofcancer and viral infections (e.g., HIV) in mammals, preferably humans.

A further aspect of the present invention is directed to a polypeptideor analog thereof, comprising at least the first 21 to about 99N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein.

A further aspect of the present invention is directed to apolynucleotide having a sequence encoding a polypeptide having at leastthe first 21 to 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-lengtheucaryotic L3 protein. Constructs containing the polynucleotides, e.g.,vectors such as plasmids functional (e.g., replicable and viable) in ahost cell such as a bacterial, yeast or animal cell, wherein thepolynucleotide is operably associated with a promoter functional in thecell or non-cellular system in which the polynucleotide is intended tobe expressed, and host cells transformed with the polynucleotide, arefurther provided. The phrase “targets a eucaryotic ribosomal L3protein”, as used herein, includes interaction between the L3 proteinand a toxin such as DON or DAS, or a RIP such as PAP, that results indepurination of ribosomes and toxicity to the cell. By the term “about99”, it is meant to include polypeptides having the first 100 N-terminalamino acid residues of a eucaryotic L3 ribosomal protein.

These and other aspects of the present invention are more fullydescribed in the sections that follow.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows constructs used to generate transgenic tobacco plantsdescribed in working examples.

FIGS. 2A, B and C show integration of L3, L3(1-100) and PAP genes intransgenic plants analyzed by PCR or Southern blot. PCR reactions wereperformed by L3, L3(1-100) and PAP-specific primers. Southern blot wasperformed on the L3(1-100) PCR products from transgenic plants using³²P-labeled L3(1-100) fragment as the probe. A. PCR analysis for L3 genein NT243 and NT250 plants. Lanes 1-2: NT243-6, 8. Lanes 3-4: NT250-1, 4.Lane 5: wt NN. Lane 6: 1 kb MW standard. B. PCR analysis of NT243 andNT245 transgenic tobacco plants for PAP gene. Lane 1: wt NN. Lanes 2-5:NT243-6, 7, 8, 9. Lanes 6-9: NT245-1, 2, 3, 4. Lane 10: wt nn. Lane 11:1 kb MW standard. C. Southern blot analysis of L3(1-100) PCR products ofNT245 and NT252 transgenic plants. Lane 1: L3(1-100) fragment releasedby restriction enzymes contained in a plasmid. Lane 2-3: NT245-1, 2.Lane 4: wt nn. Lane 5-6: NT252-1, 4.

FIGS. 3A, B and C show Western blot analysis on PAP expression level intransgenic tobacco plants. 10 μg of protein for each sample waselectrophoresed on 10% SDS-PAGE. Proteins were transferred tonitrocellulose membrane and probed with PAP-specific polyclonalantibody. A. NT243 R0 transgenic plants. B. NT243 R2 transgenic plants.C. NT245 R0 transgenic plants.

FIG. 4 shows results of a depurination assay by primer extension ofNT243 and NT245 R2 transgenic plants. Ribosomal RNAs were isolated asdescribed and incubated with ³²P end-labeled oligonucleotidecomplementary to the 3′-end of the plant large rRNA. Primer extensionwas performed by reverse transcriptase. Lane1: wt rRNA treated with PAPas in vitro positive control. Lane2: wt rRNA not treated as in vitronegative control. Lane3: PAPv (less toxic PAP variant) rRNA as in vivopositive control. Lane4: PAPx (active site mutant) rRNA as in vivonegative control. Lane5: NT245-12. Lane6: NT245-21. Lane7: NT243-64.Lane8: no rRNA plus probe control. Lane9: NT245-12 treated with PAP.Lane10: NT245-21 treated with PAP.

FIGS. 5A and B show results of a DAS fungal toxin resistance test.Tobacco seeds were surface sterilized and germinated on MS mediumcontaining 1 μM of DAS. The root length of 10 plants for each transgenicline was measured and averaged six weeks after as graphed in A. Picturesof the root growth of the wild type tobacco and transgenic plants areshown in B.

FIGS. 6A and B show results of a DON fungal toxin resistance test.Tobacco seeds were surface sterilized and germinated on MS mediumcontaining 10 μM of DON. The root length of 10 plants from eachconstruct was measured and averaged six weeks after as graphed in A.Pictures of the root growth of the wild type tobacco and transgenicplants are shown in B.

FIG. 7. shows results of a virus resistance test on the R1 transgenicplants of NT243. Two leaves of each plant were inoculated with TMV of 2μg/ml. The local lesion numbers on the upper leaves of ten plants werecounted and averaged and compared to the wild type plants.

FIG. 8 shows a Northern blot analysis to detect tobacco basic chitinasein R1 plants of NT243 inoculated with TMV (I) or with H₂O (U). Total RNAwas isolated and electrophoresed-in denaturing agarose gel andtransferred onto Duralose UV-membrane (Stratagene). The membrane washybridized with ³²P-labeled basic chitinase cDNA.

FIGS. 9A, B and C show gene expression of tobacco ribosomal protein L3Aand L3B analyzed by real-time quantitative PCR and Western blot. Inreal-time PCR (A. and B.), Oligo d(T) was used to prime the total RNA tosynthesize the first-strand CDNA with SuperScript RT. Real-time PCR wasperformed with specific primers for tobacco L3A and L3B. The geneexpression level was calculated as ddCT using tobacco tubulin gene as aninternal control. The experiment was repeated three times. In Westernblot (C.), 10 μg protein of each cytosolic sample was electrophoresed on10% SDS-PAGE gel and transferred to nitrocellulose membrane. The blotwas probed with L3 polyclonal antibody and PEPc to show equal loading.Lanes 1-12: wt nn, wt NN, NT243-64, NT243-81, NT245-12, NT245-21,NT250-11, NT250-41, NT252-11, NT252-41, PAPx and PAPv.

FIGS. 10A, B and C show gene expression of yeast L3 or L3(1-100) and PAPwas analyzed by real-time quantitative and Western blot. In real-timePCR (A. and B.), oligo d(T) was used to prime the total RNA tosynthesize the first-strand cDNA with SuperScript RT. Real-time PCR wasperformed with L3Δ- and PAP-specific primers. The gene expression levelwas calculated as ddCT using tobacco tubulin as an internal control. InWestern blot (C.), 10 μg protein of each ribosomal sample waselectrophoresed on 10% SDS-PAGE gel and transferred to nitrocellulosemembrane. The blot was probed with PAP polyclonal antibody. Lanes 1-8:wt nn, PAPx, PAPv, NT243-64, NT243-81, NT245-12, NT245-21 and PAPstandard.

FIGS. 11A and B show alignments of the amino acid sequences offull-length L3 proteins from Arabidopsis (i.e., AtRPL3A and AthRPL3B),Nicotiana tabacum (i.e., NtRPL3-8d and NtRPL3-10d), yeast (i.e., YRPL3),and rice (i.e., HvRPL3) various L3 proteins, and their first 100 aminoacid residues, respectively.

FIGS. 12, 13 and 14 show nucleotide and corresponding amino acidssequences of the yeast wild-type L3 gene (rpl3), the tobacco “8d” L3 and“10d) proteins, and the mutant tcm1 gene.

FIGS. 15 and 16 show polynucleotide and corresponding amino acidsequences of a wild-type PAP and PAP II, respectively.

FIGS. 17, 18 and 19 show the polynucleotide and corresponding amino acidsequences of ricin and two different Shiga toxins, respectively.

FIGS. 20 and 21 show results of cytotoxicity experiments conducted inyeast transformed with PAP and L3(1-99) or L3 (1-100).

FIGS. 22A and B show results of ribosome depurination experimentsconducted in yeast transformed with PAP and L3(1-99) or L3(1-100).

FIG. 23 shows results of a ribosome depurination assay conducted invitro.

FIG. 24 shows results of a real time PCR analysis of production of PAPmRNA in yeast cells transformed with L3 N-terminal polypeptides of thepresent invention.

FIG. 25 schematically shows the stem loop structure of the 5′ end of L3mRNA that encodes amino acid residues 1-21.

FIG. 26 shows results of a growth assay of yeast cells transformed withPAP and a polynucleotide encoding L3 polypeptides of the presentinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

A primary aspect of the present invention is directed to DNA sequencethat encodes a polypeptide having at least the first 21 to about 99N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein(hereinafter “L3 N-terminal polypeptides”, or “L3 N-terminal polypeptidefragments,” or an analog of the L3 polypeptide. Eucaryotic L3 proteinsinclude, but are not limited to human, yeast, bovine, mice, rat andhigher plant (e.g., rice wheat, barley, and tobacco) and Arabidopsis L3proteins. An alignment of the amino acid sequences of full-length L3proteins from Arabidopsis (i.e., AtRPL3A and AthRPL3B), Nicotianatabacum (i.e., NtRPL3-8d and NtRPL3-10d), yeast (i.e., YRPL3), and rice(i.e., HvRPL3) various L3 proteins, and their first 100 amino acidresidues, are illustrated in FIGS. 11A and B. Nucleotide andcorresponding amino acids sequences of the yeast wild-type L3 gene(rpl3), the tobacco “8d” L3 and “10d) proteins, and the mutant tcmlgene, are illustrated in FIGS. 12, 13 and 14.

The polypeptides of the present invention may include the first 21, 22,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of a eurcaryotic L3protein. These polypeptides are referred to herein as L3(1-21),L3(1-22), L3(1-23), L3(1-24), L3(1-25), L3(1-26), L3(1-27), L3(1-28),L3(1-29), L3(1-30), L3(1-31), L3(1-32), L3(1-33), L3(1-34), L3(1-35),L3(1-36), L3(1-37), L3(1-38), L3(1-39), L3(1-40), L3(1-41), L3(1-42),L3(1-43), L3(1-44), L3(1-45), L3(1-46), L3(1-47), L3(1-48), L3(1-49),L3(1-50), L3(1-51), L3(1-52), L3(1-53), L3(1-54), L3(1-55), L3(1-56),L3(1-57), L3(1-58), L3(1-59), L3(1-60), L3(1-61), L3(1-62), L3(1-63),L3(1-64), L3(1-65), L3(1-66), L3(1-67), L3(1-68), L3(1-69), L3(1-70),L3(1-71), L3(1-72), L3(1-73), L3(1-74), L3(1-75), L3(1-76), L3(1-77),L3(1-78), L3(1-79), L3(1-80), L3(1-81), L3(1-82), L3(1-83), L3(1-84),L3(1-85), L3(1-86), L3(1-87), L3(1-88), L3(1-89), L3(1-90), L3(1-91),L3(1-92), L3(1-93), L3(1-94), L3(1-95), L3(1-96), L3(1-97), L3(1-98) andL3(1-99), respectively. L3(1-99) is also referred to herein,particularly in the working examples, as “L3Δ1-99” or L3Δ99”. By way ofspecific example, as shown in FIG. 11B, L3(1-99) in yeast has an aminoacid (and corresponding nucleotide) sequence as set forth below.

Yeast L3(1-99):

-   -   +1    -   MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKRAASIRARVKAFPKDDRSKPVALTSFLGYKAGMTTI        VRDLDRPGSKFHKREVVEAVTVVDTPPVVVVGVVGYVETPRGL+99)    -   Yeast L3 (1-99) nucleotide        +1    -   ATGTCTCACAGAAAGTACGAAGCACCACGTCACGGTCATTTAGGTTTCTTGCCAAGA AAG    -   AGAGCTGCCTCCATCAGAGCTAGAGTTAAGGCTTTTCCAAAGGATGACAGATCCAA GCCA    -   GTTGCTCTAACTTCCTTCTTGGGTTACAAGGCTGGTATGACCACCATTGTCAGAGA TTTG    -   GACAGACCAGGTTCTAAGTTCCACAAGCGTGAAGTTGTCGAAGCTGTCACCGTTGT TGAC    -   ACTCCACCAGTTGTCGTTGTTGGTGTTGTCGGTTACGTCGAAACCCCAAGAGGTTTG A+298.        Thus, the amino acid sequences corresponding to yeast L3(1-21)        to L3(1-99) may be easily ascertained, as follows: L3(1-21)        MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKR; L(1-22) MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKRA; L3(1-23)        MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKRAA; L3(1-24 MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKRAAS;        L3(1-25) MSHRKYEAPRHGHLGFLPRKRAASI, etc.

It is readily apparent that although the L3 proteins illustrated inFIGS. 11A and B possess a high level of sequence similarity, there aredifferences in various first 99 residues. Such differences occur atpositions 6 (F or Y), 8 (H or A), 11 (H or T), 13 (S or H), 23 (N, S orA), 24 (R or S), 25 (H or I), 27 (G or A), 28 (K or R), 29 (V or C), 31(A or S), 37(Q, P, T, R or K), 38 (T, N, or S), 41 (C or V), 42 (K, R,A, or H), 43 (F or L), 45 (A or S), 47 (M or L), 55 (H or T), 60 (V orL), 61 (E or D), 62 (K or R), 67, (L, F or M), 70 (K or R), 72 (T or V),73 (C or V), 75 (A or L), 78 (I or V), 79 (I or V), 80 (E or D), 83 (Aor P), 84 (M, V or I), 85 (V or I), 86 (V or I), 91 (A or G) and 94 (Kor E). Thus, L3(1-21)-L3(1-99) from yeast, as well as from rice,Arabidopsis, and tobacco L3 proteins illustrated in FIG. 11B constitutespecific examples of polypeptides of the present invention. Yet otherpolypeptides of the present invention may be based on amino acidsequences of L3 proteins not specifically disclosed herein in accordanceby resort to the literature or standard techniques (e.g., probinggenomic or cDNA libraries with probes corresponding to conserved regionsof L3 proteins as shown in FIGS. 11A and B.

In certain embodiments, depending on the nature of the restrictionenzyme and the vector, use of L3(1-99) will result in expression of L3(1-100). This would occur, for instance, when L3 DNA starting materialis produced by treating yeast L3 DNA with BglII, inserting the DNAencoding L3(1-99) into a vector with a BamHI or BglII site, and thentransforming a cell with the vector. In this case, an “R” codon would beadded. Since native yeast L3 contains an R at residue 100, thecorresponding expression product would be L3 (1-100). Thus, thepolypeptides of the present invention include L3 (1-100). L3(1-100). isalso referred to herein, particularly in the working examples, as“L3Δ100” or L3Δ1-100”.

The present invention also includes analogs of the L3 N-terminalpolypeptides. In general, analogs differ from the native sequences ofthe L3 N-terminal polypeptides In general, analogs of the polypeptidesin terms of amino acid alterations or modifications, substitutions,insertions or deletions, and preferably in terms of one or moreconservative or non-conservative amino acid substitutions. In preferredembodiments, the analogs differ in terms of one or more conservativeamino acid substitutions, particularly in any of amino acids 1-21, whichas illustrated in FIG. 25, the mRNA of which forms a secondary stem loopstructure. Referring again to FIG. 11B, L3(1-21) from yeast may have an“H” residue substituted for the “A” residue at position 8. There isrelatively more latitude for analogs of L3 N-terminal polypeptides thatcontain additional amino acids, i.e., having from at least the first 22to about 99 amino acids, and amino acids substitutions may beconservative or non-conservative in nature. Analogs of the presentinvention also possess the desired properties, e.g., providing increasedresistance to toxins (e.g., trichodermin toxins) that target eurcaryoticL3 ribosomal proteins when present in a given host, and when presentalong with an RIP that targets a eurcaryotic L3 ribosomal protein,serves to reduce toxicity associated with the RIP.

It is also well understood by the skilled artisan that there is a limitto the number of changes that may be made within a portion of themolecule and still result in a molecule with an acceptable level ofequivalent biological activity of function. There are several generalguidelines to consider in determining whether a given change in an aminoacid sequence will result in an unacceptable change in the desiredactivity. First, tolerance to change increases with the length of thepeptide or protein. It is also well understood that where certainresidues are shown to be particularly important to the biological orstructural properties of a polyamino acid, such residues may notgenerally be exchanged. Amino acid substitutions are generally based onthe relative similarity of the various types of amino acid side-chains,for example, their hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, charge, size, and thelike. For example, the nonpolar (hydrophobic) amino acids includealanine, leucine, isoleucine, valine, proline, phenylalanine, tryptophanand methionine. Amino acids containing aromatic ring structures arephenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine. The polar neutral amino acidsinclude glycine, serine, threonine, cysteine, tyrosine, asparagine, andglutamine. The positively charged (basic) amino acids include arginine,lysine and histidine. The negatively charged (acidic) amino acidsinclude aspartic acid and glutamic acid.

Therefore, based upon these considerations, arginine, lysine andhistidine; alanine, glycine and serine; and phenylalanine, tryptophanand tyrosine; are defined herein as biologically functional equivalents.To effect more quantitative changes, the hydropathic index of aminoacids may be considered. Each amino acid has been assigned a hydropathicindex on the basis of its hydrophobicity and charge characteristics,which are as follows: isoleucine (+4.5); valine (+4.2); leucine (+3.8);phenylalanine (+2.8); cysteine/cystine (+2.5); methionine (+1.9);alanine (+1.8); glycine (−0.4); threonine (−0.7); serine (−0.8);tryptophan (−0.9); tyrosine (−1.3); proline (−1.6); histidine (−3.2);glutamate (−3.5); glutamine (−3.5); aspartate (−3.5); asparagine (−3.5);lysine (−3.9); and arginine (−4.5). The importance of the hydropathicamino acid index in conferring interactive biological function on aprotein, and correspondingly a polyamino acid, is generally understoodin the art. It is known that certain amino acids may be substituted forother amino acids having a similar hydropathic index or score and stillretain a similar biological activity. In making changes based upon thehydropathic index, the substitution of amino acids whose hydropathicindices are within 2 is preferred, those which are within approximately1 are particularly preferred, and those within approximately 0.5 areeven more particularly preferred.

It is also understood in the art that the substitution of like aminoacids can be made effectively on the basis of hydrophilicity. Asdisclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,554,101, the following hydrophilicityvalues have been assigned to amino acid residues: arginine (+3.0);lysine (+3.0); aspartate (+3.0±1); glutamate (+3.0±I); serine 5 (+0.3);asparagine (+0.2); glutamine (+0.2); glycine (0); threonine (−0.4);proline (−0.5±1); alanine (−0.5); histidine (−0.5); cysteine (−1.0);methionine (−1.3); valine (−1.5); leucine (−1.8); isoleucine (−1.8);tyrosine (−2.3); phenylalanine (−2.5); tryptophan (−3.4). In makingchanges based upon similar hydrophilicity values, the substitution ofamino acids whose hydrophilicity values are within ±2 is preferred,those which are within ±1 are particularly preferred, and those within±0.5 are even more particularly preferred. In some embodiments, analogsof the polypeptides contain amino acid substitutions in the positionswhere as shown in FIGS. 11A and B, variability exists.

Expression of a transgene encoding the polypeptide or analog in a plant(transformed with the transgene) confers increased resistance to toxinsand antibiotics that target eurcaryotic ribosomal protein L3, and whichare toxic to and cause disease in plants. Such toxins includetrichothecene mycotoxins (also referred to as sesquiterpene antibiotics)such as fusarenon X, trichothecin, verrucarin A, nivalenol,trichodermin, T-2 toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS) and deoxynivalenol(DON). Trichothecenes are a class of toxic, sesquiterpenoid secondarymetabolites that are produced mainly by plant pathogenic fungi(Fernandez-Lobato et al., Biochem. J. 267:709-713 (1990)). Fusariumgraminearum and F. culmorum produce the trichothecene mycotoxinsdeoxynivalenol (DON), also known as vomitoxin, which contaminates asubstantial. portion of agricultural crops such as wheat, barley andmaize, and 4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS). The resistance to these toxinsand the diseases they cause will be greater than the level of resistanceexhibited by a non-transgenic control plant. Transgenic plants of thepresent invention particularly show greater resistance to at least twotrichothecene mycotoxins, DON and DAS (and thus the diseases theycause), than a non-transgenic control plant of the same species.Resistance may also be about equal to or greater than a transgeniccontrol plant that expresses an exogenous transgene that encodes wildtype yeast L3 (as shown in FIG. 12). This determination can be made inaccordance with the protocols described in the working examples.

Thus, plants transformed with nucleic acids encoding L3 N-terminalpolypeptide or an analog thereof exhibit increased resistance todiseases and infections or infestations caused or mediated bytrichothecene mycotoxins, particularly DON and DAS. Thus, in general,transgenic plants of the present invention will exhibit resistanceagainst diseases caused by Fusarium infection (e.g., root rot of bean,dry rot of potatoes, head blight (scab) in wheat), Pythium (one of thecauses of seed rot, seedling damping off and root rot), Phytophthora(the cause of late blight of potato and of root rots, and blights ofmany other plants), Bremia, Peronospora, Plasmopara, Pseudoperonosporaand Sclerospora (causing downy mildews), Erysiphe graminis (causingpowdery mildew of cereals and grasses), Verticillium (causing vascularwilts of vegetables, flowers, crop plants and trees), Rhizoctonia(causing damping off disease of many plants and brown patch disease ofturfgrasses), Cochliobolus (causing root and foot rot, and also blightof cereals and grasses), Giberella (causing seedling blight and foot orstalk rot of corn and small grains), Gaeumannomyces (causing thetake-all and whiteheads disease of cereals), Schlerotinia (causing crownrots and blights of flowers and vegetables and dollar spot disease ofturfgrasses), Puccinia (causing the stem rust of wheat and other smallgrains), Ustilago (causing corn smut), Magnaporthae (causing summerpatch of turfgrasses), and Schlerotium (causing southern blight ofturfgrasses). Other important fungal diseases include those caused byCercospora, Septoria, Mycosphoerella, Glomerella, Colletotrichum,Helminthosporium, Alterneria, Botrytis, Cladosporium and Aspergillus.Since the L3 N-terminal polypeptides also affect viral frameshifting,the plants might also exhibit resistance to certain plant viruses e.g.,barley yellow dwarf virus, potato leafroll virus, citrus tristeza virusand beet western yellows virus.

Nucleic acids encoding the L3 N-terminal polypeptides and analogsthereof of the present invention can be prepared in accordance withstandard procedures such as cloning or synthetic synthesis. In additionto the nucleotide sequence for L3(1-99) from yeast that is set forthabove, representative nucleic acid sequences are contained in FIGS. 11Aand B, 12, 13 and 14. That is, the portion of the full-lengthpolynucleotide that encodes the L3 N-terminal polypeptide may be easilydesigned by introducing a “stop” codon immediately after the C-terminalamino acid residue of the desired N-terminal polypeptide. For example, arepresentative polynucleotide encoding yeast L3(1-21) may have asequence as follows: 5′ atgtctcaca gaaagtacga agcaccacgt cacggtcatttaggtttctt gccaagaaag agataa 3′. Allelic versions of the sequences andhomologous sequences encoding L3 proteins may be found in eurcaryoticcell types other than plants such as humans and rodents (e.g., rats andmice). For example, nucleic acid sequences encoding L3 proteins areobtainable from a variety of publicly accessible web sites related tovarious genome projects. Yet other nucleic acids having sequencesencoding the L3 N-terminal polypeptides and analogs thereof may beprepared based on considerations of the degeneracy of the code and thecodon preference of a given host cell, e.g., plant or other eucaryoticcell such as an animal or human cell, in which the polynucleotide is tobe expressed.

In other embodiments of the present invention, transgenic plantscontaining nucleic acids encoding L3 N-terminal polypeptides and analogsalso contain exogenous nucleic acids encoding a ribosome inactivatingprotein (RIP) such as a Pokeweed Anti-viral Protein (PAP) protein. PAPproteins include wild-type PAP, variant PAP (i.e. PAP-v, which differsfrom wild-type PAP in terms of the double amino acid substitutions,Leu20Arg and Tyr49His), PAP mutants having reduced toxicity (e.g.,phytotoxicity) compared to wild-type PAP or PAP-v, and which have intactcatalytic active site amino acid residues (Glu176 and Arg179), and PAPII proteins. Wild-type PAP, PAP-v and various PAP mutants are describedin U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,756,322 and 5,880,322. Aside from the differences inthe codons resulting in the two amino acid changes, the third change inthe PAP-v nucleotide sequence (i.e., TCG →TCA for the first occurringSer in the signal sequence) has no effect on the amino acid sequence.PAP II is reported in Poyet, et al., FEBS Letters 347:268-272 (1994).The term “PAP-II,” is inclusive of the 310 amino acid polypeptidedisclosed in Poyet, et al., the 285-amino acid polypeptide containingamino acid residues 26-310 of said polypeptide (i.e., “PAP II (1-285)”)and which excludes the N-terminal twenty-five (25)-amino acid signalsequence and analogs of PAP II (1-285) such as fragments and mutants(e.g., amino acid additions, deletions and substitutions) thatsubstantially retain PAP II anti-viral and anti-fungal properties andexhibit reduced phytotoxicity compared to PAP. PAP II and PAP II mutantsare described in WO 99/60843, published Dec. 2, 1999. Polynucleotide andcorresponding amino acid sequences of a wild-type PAP and PAP II areillustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, respectively. Other RIPs useful in thepresent invention include ricin toxin and Shiga toxin. Nucleotide andcorresponding amino acid sequences of ricin and two different Shigatoxins are illustrated in FIGS. 17, 18 and 19, respectively. Other RIPsinclude but are not limited to trichosanthin, saporin, mirabilisantiviral protein, momordin, dianthin and gelonin.

Transgenic plants expressing exogenous nucleic acids encoding a RIPprotein will exhibit increased resistance to plant fungi that producetoxins that target eucaryotic L3 ribosomal proteins. Thus, expression ofan RIP may provide increased resistance to diseases caused by fungi suchas Fusarium infection (e.g., root rot of bean, dry rot of potatoes, headblight (scab) in wheat), Pythium (one of the causes of seed rot,seedling damping off and root rot), Phytophthora (the cause of lateblight of potato and of root rots, and blights of many other plants),Bremia, Peronospora, Plasmopara, Pseudoperonospora and Sclerospora(causing downy mildews), Erysiphe graminis (causing powdery mildew ofcereals and grasses), Verticillium (causing vascular wilts ofvegetables, flowers, crop plants and trees), Rhizoctonia (causingdamping off disease of many plants and brown patch disease ofturfgrasses), Cochliobolus (causing root and foot rot, and also blightof cereals and grasses), Giberella (causing seedling blight and foot orstalk rot of corn and small grains), Gaeumannomyces (causing thetake-all and whiteheads disease of cereals), Schlerotinia (causing crownrots and blights of flowers and vegetables and dollar spot disease ofturfgrasses), Puccinia (causing the stem rust of wheat and other smallgrains), Ustilago (causing corn smut), Magnaporthae (causing summerpatch of turfgrasses), and Schlerotium (causing southern blight ofturfgrasses). Other important fungal diseases include those caused byCercospora, Septoria, Mycosphoerella, Glomerella, Colletotrichum,Helminthosporium, Alterneria, Botrytis, Cladosporium and Aspergillus.

RIPs might also provide increased resistance to viruses including butnot limited to RNA viruses e.g., citrus tristeza virus, potexvirusessuch as (PVX, potato virus X), potyvirus (PVY), cucumber mosaic virus(CMV), tobacco mosaic viruses (TMV), barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV),wheat streak mosaic virus, potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), plumpox virus,watermelon mosaic virus, zucchini yellow mosaic virus, papaya ringspotvirus, beet western yellow virus, soybean dwarf virus, carrot read leafvirus and DNA plant viruses such as tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Seealso Lodge, et al., PNAS USA 90:7089-7093 (1993); Tomlinson, et al., J.Gen. Virol. 22:225-232 (1974); and Chen, et al., Plant Pathol.40:612-620 (1991).

Since the RIPs of the present invention target L3 ribosomal proteins andas a result, are toxic to eucaryotic cells, the co-expression ortranscription of a nucleic acid encoding a L3 N-terminal polypeptidewill reduce such toxicity, relative to a control plant expressing an RIPtransgene but which does not contain the L3 N-terminalpolypeptide-encoding transgene.

Nucleic acids encoding L3 N-terminal polypeptides and analogs thereof,and in some embodiments, a PAP protein, can be introduced and expressedin a variety of plants including higher plants such as flowering plants,including both monocots and dicots, and preferably crop plants andcereal crop plants, in accordance with standard transformationtechniques for the plant type of interest. See U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,322(and references cited therein), Horsch, et al., Science 227:1229-1231(1985); and Hartman, et al., Bio/technology 12:919-923 (1994).Preparation of expression cassettes and vectors for the introduction ofthe L3 nucleic acid into plant cells, protoplasts, whole plants andplant parts are also well known in the art. In general, any cloningvector can be used; the choice will reflect the host in which the finaltransformation is made and the manner in which transformation isaccomplished. Vectors suitable for Agrobacterium transformationtypically carry at least one T-DNA border sequence. These includevectors such as pBIN19 (Bevan, Nucleic Acids Research 12:8711-8721(1984)) and pCIB200 (EP 0 332 104). Transformation without the use ofAgrobacterium tumefaciens circumvents the requirement for T-DNAsequences in the chosen transformation vector and consequently vectorslacking these sequences can be utilized in addition to vectors thatcontain T-DNA sequences. Transformation techniques that do not rely onAgrobacterium include transformation via particle bombardment,protoplast uptake (e.g. PEG and electroporation) and microinjection. Forexample, pCIB3064 is a pUC-derived vector suitable for the direct genetransfer technique in combination with selection by the herbicide basta(or phosphinothricin), as described, for example, in WO 93/07278 andKoziel et al., Biotechnology 11:194-200 (1993).

For the transformation of plants, the cloning vector can furthercomprise a 3′ untranslated region. A 3′ untranslated region refers tothat portion of a gene comprising a DNA segment that contains apolyadenylation signal and any other regulatory signals capable ofeffecting mRNA processing or gene expression. The polyadenylation signalis usually characterized by directing the addition of polyadenylic acidtracks to the 3′ end of the mRNA precursor. Polyadenylation signals arecommonly recognized by the presence of homology to the canonical form 5′AATAAA-3′ although variations are not uncommon. Examples of suitable 3′regions are the 3′ transcribed non-translated regions containing apolyadenylation signal of Agrobacterium tumor inducing (Ti) plasmidgenes, such as the nopaline synthase (Nos gene) and plant genes such asthe soybean storage protein genes and the small subunit of theribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (ssRUBISCO) gene. The 3′untranslated region from the modified peptidyl transferase gene of thepresent construct can be used for expression in plants, without anyadditional region. The vectors of the present invention can also containa suitable promoter functional in the host. In the case of monocottransformation, for example, preferred promoters include the CaMV 35Spromoter, ubiquitin promoter, and the actin promoter. For dicots,mention may be made of the CaMV 35S promoter, the enhanced CaMV 35Spromoter, the L3 promoter or the FMV (figwort mosaic virus) promoter. Inthe embodiments of the present invention that entail transformation of aplant with a nucleic acid encoding a PAP protein, it is preferred toplace the nucleic acids encoding L3Δ or analog thereof, and PAP underthe control of separate regulatory units and polyadenylation sites(i.e., to prepare polycistronic rather than monocistronic expressioncassettes. An expression cassette containing the nucleic acid(s) of thepresent invention may be inserted into a plant transformation vector bystandard recombinant DNA methods. Alternatively, some or all of theelements of the expression cassette may be present in the vector, andany remaining elements may be added to the vector as necessary.

Transformation techniques for dicotyledons are well known in the art andinclude Agrobacterium-based techniques and techniques which do notrequire Agrobacterium. Non-Agrobacterium techniques involve the uptakeof exogenous genetic material directly by protoplasts or cells. This canbe accomplished by PEG or electroporation mediated uptake, particlebombardment-mediated delivery, or microinjection. Examples of thesetechniques are described in Paszkowski et al., EMBO J 3:2717-2722(1984), Potrykis et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 199:169-177 (1985), Reich etal., Biotechnology 4:1001-1004 (1986), and Klein et al., Nature 327:70-73 (1987). In each case the transformed cells are regenerated towhole plants using standard techniques.

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is a preferred technique fortransformation of dicotyledons (dicots) because of its high efficiencyof transformation and its broad utility with many different species. Themany crop species which are routinely transformable by Agrobacteriuminclude tobacco, tomato, sunflower, cotton, oilseed rape, potato,soybean, alfalfa and poplar (EP 0 317 511 (cotton), EP 0 249 432(tomato), WO 87/07299 (Brassica), U.S. Pat. No. 4,795,855 (poplar)).Agrobacterium transformation typically involves the transfer of thebinary vector carrying the foreign DNA of interest (e.g. pCIB200 orpCIB2001) to an appropriate Agrobacterium strain which may depend on thecomplement of vir genes carried by the host Agrobacterium strain eitheron a co-resident plasmid or chromosomally (e.g. strain CIB542 forpCIB200 (Uknes et al. Plant Cell 5:159-169 (1993)). The transfer of therecombinant binary vector, to Agrobacterium is accomplished by atriparental mating procedure using E. coli carrying the recombinantbinary vector, a helper E. coli strain which carries a plasmid such aspRK2013 which is able to mobilize the recombinant binary vector to thetarget Agrobacterium strain. Alternatively, the recombinant binaryvector can be transferred to Agrobacterium by DNA transformation (Höfgen& Willmitzer, Nucl. Acids Res. 16:9877 (1988)). Transformation of thetarget plant species by recombinant Agrobacterium usually involvesco-cultivation of the Agrobacterium with explants from the plant andfollows protocols known in the art. Transformed tissue is regenerated onselectable medium carrying an antibiotic or herbicide resistance markerpresent between the binary plasmid T-DNA borders.

Preferred transformation techniques for monocots include direct genetransfer into protoplasts using PEG or electroporation techniques andparticle bombardment into callus tissue. Transformation can beundertaken with a single DNA species or multiple DNA species (i.e.co-transformation) and both these techniques are suitable for use withthis invention. Co-transformation may have the advantages of avoidingcomplex vector construction and generating transgenic plants withunlinked loci for the gene of interest and the selectable marker,enabling the removal of the selectable marker in subsequent generations,should this be regarded desirable. However, a disadvantage of the use ofco-transformation is the less than 100% frequency with which separateDNA species are integrated into the genome (Schocher et al.,Biotechnology 4:1093-1096 (1986)).

Published European Patent Applications EP O 292 435 and EP O 392 225,and PCT application WO 93/07278 describe techniques for the preparationof callus and protoplasts of maize, transformation of protoplasts usingPEG or electroporation, and the regeneration of maize plants fromtransformed protoplasts. Gordeon-Kamm et al., Plant Cell 2:603-618(1990), and Fromm et al., Biotechnology 11:194-200 (1993), describetechniques for the transformation of elite inbred lines of maize byparticle bombardment.

Transformation of rice can also be undertaken by direct gene transfertechniques utilizing protoplasts or particle bombardment.Protoplast-mediated transformation has been described for Japonica-typesand Indica-types (Zhange et al., Plant Cell Rep. 7:739-384 (1988);Shimamoto et al. Nature 338:274-277 (1989); Datta et al. Biotechnology8:736-740 (1990)). Both types are also routinely transformable usingparticle bombardment (Christou et al. Biotechnology 9:957-962 (1991)).

Patent Application EP 0 332 581 described techniques for the generation,transformation and regeneration of Pooideae protoplasts. Furthermore,wheat transformation has been described by Vasil et al., Biotechnology10:667-674 (1992), using particle bombardment into cells of type Clong-term regenerable callus, and also by Vasil et al., Biotechnology11:1553-1558 (1993), and Weeks et al., Plant Physiol. 102:1077-1084(1993), using particle bombardment of immature embryos and immatureembryo-derived callus.

Transformation of monocot cells such as Zea mays can be achieved bybringing the monocot cells into contact with a multiplicity ofneedle-like bodies on which these cells may be impaled, causing arupture in the cell wall thereby allowing entry of transforming DNA intothe cells. See U.S. Pat. No. 5,302,523. Transformation techniquesapplicable to both monocots and dicots are also disclosed in thefollowing U.S. Pat. Nos.: 5,240,855 (particle gun); 5,204,253 (cold gasshock accelerated microprojectiles); 5,179,022 (biolistic apparatus);4,743,548 and 5,114,854 (microinjection); and 5,149,655 5,120,657(accelerated particle mediated transformation); 5,066,587 (gas drivenmicroprojectile accelerator); 5,015,580 (particle-mediatedtransformation of soy bean plants); 5,013,660 (laser beam-mediatedtransformation); and 4,849,355 and 4,663,292. See also section 6.2.7 ofU.S. Pat. No. 6,720,014, which describes transformation of monocots.

To aid in identification of transformed cells, the vectors may furthercontain a selectable marker (e.g., a reporter gene). For certain targetspecies, different antibiotic or herbicide selection markers may bepreferred. Selection markers used routinely in transformations includethe nptII gene which confers resistance to kanamycin (Messing andVierra, Gene 19:259-268 (1982); Bevan et al., Nature 304: 184-187(1983)), the bar gene which confers resistance to the herbicidephosphinothricin (White et al., Nucl. Acids Res. 18:1062 (1990); Spenceret al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 79:625-631 (1990)), the hph gene whichconfers resistance to the antibiotic hygromycin (Blochinger &Diggelmann, Mol. Cell Biol. 4:2929-2931)), and the dhfr gene, whichconfers resistance to methotrexate). Selection of successfultransformation events may also be accomplished using a CGS gene as areporter. See, e.g., WO 00/55303, published Sep. 21, 2000, to Tumer, etal.

The thus-transformed plant cells or plant tissue are then grown intofull plants in accordance with standard techniques. Transgenic seed canbe obtained from transgenic flowering plants in accordance with standardtechniques. Likewise, non-flowering plants such as potato and sugarbeets can be propagated by a variety of known procedures. See, e.g.,Newell, et al. Plant Cell Rep. 10:30-34 (1991) (disclosing potatotransformation by stem culture).

Techniques for transforming plants and regenerating plants are alsodisclosed in Lanfranco, Riv. Biol. 96(1):31-54 (2003); Job, Biochimie84(11):1105-10 (2002); Taylor, et al., DNA Cell Biol. 21(12):963-77(2002); Rakoczy-Trojanowska, Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 7(3):849-58 (2002);Ow, Plant Mol. Biol. 48(1-2):183-200 (2002); Boch, J. Mol. Biol.312(3):425-38 (2001); Casas, et al., Plant Breed Rev. 13:235-64 (1995);Newell, Mol. Biotechnol. 16(1):53-65 (2000); Bogorad, Trends Biotechnol.18(6):257-63 (2000); Komari, et al., Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 1(2):161-5(1998); Dempsey, et al., Trends Microbiol. 6(2):54-61 (1998); Oard,Biotechnol. Adv. 9(1):1-11 (1991); and Holm, et al., Transgenic Res.9(1):21-32 (2000). Specific examples of transformation in potato, rice,corn, barley and wheat are disclosed in Garg, et al., PNAS99(25):15898-15903 (2002); Cheng, et al., PNAS 95:2767-2772 (1998);Wakita, et al., Genes Genet. Syst. 73:219-226 (1998); Lin, et al., PNAS100(10):5962-5967 (2003); Breitler, et al., Theor. Appl. Genet.104(4):709-719 (2002); Miller, et al., Transgenic Res. 11(4):381-96(2002); Aulinger, et al., Plant Cell Rep. 21(6):585-91 (2003); Romano,et al., Transgenic Res. 12(4):461-73 (2003); de Vetten, et al., Nat.Biotechnol. 21(4):439-42 (2003); Park, et al., Protein Expr. Purif.25(1):160-5 (2002); Sawahel, Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 7(1):19-29 (2002);Frame, et al., Plant Physiol. 129:13-22 (2002); Hansen, et al., PNAS93:14978-14983 (1996); Grosset, et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 34(2):331-8(1997); Patnaik, et al., BMC Plant Biol. 3:1-11 (2003); Rasco-Gaunt, etal., J. Exp. Botany 52(357):865-874 (2001); Amoah, et al., J. Exp.Botany 52 (358):1135-1142 (2001); and Cheng, et al., Plant Physiol.115:971-80 (1997).

Representative examples of transgenic plants of the present inventioninclude maize, tomato, turfgrass, asparagus, papaya, sunflower, rye,oats, millet, beans, ginger, lotus, bamboo, potato, rice, peanut,barley, malt, wheat, alfalfa, soybean, oat, eggplant, squash, onion,broccoli, sugarcane, sugar beet, beets, apples, oranges, grapefruit,pear, plum, peach, pineapple, grape, rose, carnation, daisy, tulip,Douglas fir, cedar, white pine, scotch pine, spruce, peas, cotton, flax,canola, ornamentals and coffee.

In less preferred embodiments, the L3 polypeptides (with or without aRIP) may be applied directly to a plant or part thereof, in order toachieve increased resistance to fungal diseases.

The L3 N-terminal polypeptides or analogs thereof of the presentinvention also have pharmaceutical uses. For example, they may beintroduced into other eukaryotic cells e.g., human or animal cells, suchas by way of administration to an animal or human, to reduce thecytotoxic effect of various pharmaceutical and therapeutic agents thatcontain ribosome inhibitory proteins (RIP) such as PAP proteins, andparticularly wild-type PAP. They are also useful in providing increasedresistance to fungal infection, e.g., infections caused or medited bytrichothecene mycotoxins, particularly DON and DAS, which are also toxicto human and animal cells. RIPs such as PAP are used to treat viralinfections such as HIV (which tends to cause toxicity to host cells),and as targeted cytotoxic agents e.g., to treat cancers (in which case,there is some undesirable non-specific cytotoxicity). In the latterand/or former cases, the RIP may be administered in conjugated form to aligand that recognizes a receptor on a target cell surface. See, e.g.,U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,919,457 and 6,146,628. While not intending to be boundby any particular theory of operation, Applicants believe that thecytotoxic effect of these RIPs such as PAP proteins is mediated bybinding to endogenous L3 proteins in the cell. Embodiments of thepresent invention include co-administration of a composition containingan L3 N-terminal polypeptide or analog thereof along with the RIP, oradministration of separate compositions containing the L3 N-terminalpolypeptide or analog thereof and the RIP, to an animal (e.g., a mammalsuch as a human) in need thereof. By co-administration, it is meantadministration of the L3 N-terminal polypeptide or analog thereofsuitably prior to, simultaneously with or after the administration ofthe RIP such that the L3 will be present in the cell to reduce tocytotoxic effect of the RIP on various cells, particlularly non-diseasedcells. The compositions may include a pharmaceutically or veterinaryacceptable carrier and at least one other pharmaceutical or veterinaryacceptable excipient. Dosage amounts and modes of administration may bedetermined and optimized based on a consideration of factors such as theweight, age and overall health of the human or animal and severity ofthe infection, and in accordance with standard procedures in the field.

The L3 N-terminal polypeptides may be produced recombinantly orsynthetically, preferably recombinantly, by standard techniques. Asidefrom production and isolation of the polypeptides from transformed planthosts (as described above), the polypeptides may be recombinantlyproduced in bacterial cells, e.g., E. coli, Streptomyces, Bacillussubtilis, fungal cells such as yeast, insect cells, and animal cells. Asin the case of plants, choice of appropriate vectors, promoters andother 5′ and 3′ regulatory flanking sequences, e.g., origin ofreplication, translation initiation and termination, leader sequence,marker genes, methods of introducing the DNAs encoding the polypeptidesinto the host cell, culturing, isolation and purification techniques,are all well known in the art. Cell-free translation systems may also beemployed.

In embodiments of the present invention intended to provide a greaterdegree of resistance to trichothecene mycotoxins, the human or animalmay be administered a composition comprising an effective amount of theL3 N-terminal polypeptide or analog thereof. Here again, dosage amountsand modes of administration may be determined and optimized based on aconsideration of factors such as the weight, age and overall health ofthe human or animal and severity of the infection, and in accordancewith standard procedures in the field. This effect may also be achievedby generation of a transformed human or animal (e.g., a non-humananimal) containing a nucleic acid encoding L3 N-terminal polypeptide oran analog thereof. The transformed animals are more tolerant to at leastthe two trichothecene mycotoxins DON and DAS relative to the samespecies of animal that is not transformed with the nucleic acid.Techniques for generating transgenic animals have been developed andoptimized in mice (Hogan et al., 1986, Manipulation of the mouse embryo:a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press: New York),sheep (Wright et al., 1991, Bio-technology NY 9: 831-834), goats (Ebertand Schindler, 1993, Teriogenology, 39: 121-135) and pigs (Rexroad andPurcel, 1988, Proc. 11th Int. Congress of Animal Reproduction andArtificial Insem. 5: 29-35)). In general, such methods are based uponpronuclear micro-injection of fertilized zygotes taken fromsuper-ovulated female animals. Zygote pronuclei are micro-injected withseveral hundred copies of the novel gene construct, and then transferredto recipient females for the remainder of the gestation period.Confirmation of transgene integration is by Southern hybridization ofsomatic tissues taken from the offspring, and analysis of gene productor gene function. Suitable animal hosts include any non-human animalthat has, at least as a part of its diet, the food grains obtained fromplants suspectible to infection by fungi that produce DON and DAS. Theseanimals would include but are not limited to livestock animals, bovinesand equines. Examples of specific animals are cows, sheep, goats, pigs,horses, poultry, and rodents such as rats and mice. Methods ofintroducing transgenes into animal cells and the preparation oftransgenic non-human animals are described in section 6.3.17 of U.S.Pat. No. 6,720,014, that specific disclosure,of which is herebyincorporated herein by reference.

The present invention is further:described in terms of the followingnon-limiting examples. Unless otherwise indicated, all parts andpercentages are on a weight-by-weight basis.

In the first few examples that follow, Applicants have demonstrated, bya sensitive seed germination assay, that over-expression of L3Δ100 intransgenic tobacco plants conferred resistance to the trichothecenefungal toxins DON and DAS, and that in another embodiment of the presentinvention, namely transgenic tobacco plants transformed with both theyeast L3Δ100 gene and wild type PAP, showed the greatest resistance toDON, compared to prior art plants expressing wild-type L3 and PAP.

Specifically, Applicants generated transgenic tobacco plants expressingeither the wild type yeast L3 gene or its N-terminal 100 amino acids(L3Δ100) alone or together with pokeweed antiviral protein (PAP) gene.In these first examples, gene expression of L3Δ99 resulted in thepolypeptide L3Δ100. The results indicated that expression of L3Δ100 intransgenic tobacco plants conferred greater resistance to trichothecenemycotoxins, DON and DAS (4,15-diacetoxyscirpenol) than did wild typeyeast L3. The combination of L3 and PAP in transgenic plants not onlyrendered most of the plants normal looking by reducing the toxicity ofPAP, but also conferred significant resistance to both fungal toxins andtobacco mosaic virus. The combination of L3Δ100 and PAP resulted in allplants looking normal and high level of resistance to the fungal toxins.Analysis of ribosomes of the transgenic plants indicated that althoughthe toxicity of PAP was reduced in plants containing wild type yeast L3together with PAP, ribosomes were depurinated. In contrast, ribosomedepurination was abolished in transgenic plants containing L3Δ100 andPAP, leading to elimination of PAP toxicity and regeneration of normallooking plants that expressed high levels of PAP. Expression of theendogenous tobacco ribosomal protein genes, L3A and L3B, was upregulated in all the transgenic tobacco lines.

Expression of the Yeast Wild Type L3, and the L3Δ Alone or Combined withPAP in Transgenic Tobacco Plants

Yeast wild type L3 gene, and the L3Δ100 (the N-terminal 100 amino acidsof L3) were cloned singly into a plant expression vector resulting inconstructs NT250, and NT252 (FIG. 1). Yeast L3, and L3Δ100 combined withwild type PAP were cloned separately into the plant expression vectorgenerating constructs NT243, and NT245. The expression of the L3 genesand PAP gene were driven by CaMV 35S promoter individually. Kanamycinresistance gene (NPTII) served as the selection marker. All constructswere transformed into tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum cv Samsun NN or nn viaAgrobacterium-mediated transformation (Lodge et al. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA 90:7089-7093 (1993)).

ELISA assays were performed on the regenerated plants to identifyNPTII-positive transgenic plants (Agdia). PCR reactions with L3 and PAPspecific primers were carried out to determine the presence of thesegenes in the transgenic plants. To confirm the identities of L3Δ100 PCRproducts, they were electrophoresed in agarose gel and transferred toStratagene Duralose-UV membrane by capillary action overnight. Themembrane was probed with ³²P-labeled L3Δ cDNA and Southern blot analysiswas performed. Western blot analysis with PAP specific antiserum or L3specific monoclonal antibody (kindly provided by J. Warner) was used todetermine the expression levels of these two genes in the transgenicplants.

Ribosomal RNA Depurination Assay by Primer Extension

To test the viability of PAP transgene in NT243 (L3+PAP) and NT245(L3Δ100+PAP) transgenic tobacco plants, ribosomes from the leaves wereisolated as described (Hudak et al., J. Biol. Chem. 274:8359-3864(1999)). Ribosomal RNAs were isolated from the -ribosomes and used asthe substrate in primer extension analysis. Purified ribosomal RNAs wereincubated with a 5′ ³²P end-labelled oligonucleotide(5′-AGGCGTTCAGTCATAATCC-3′) complementary to the 3′-end of the plantlarge rRNA. Primer extension was performed by reverse transcription withthe GibcoBRL SuperscriptII reverse transcriptase and the reaction wasprecipitated in 100% ethanol and resuspended in formamide loadingbuffer. The primer extension products were separated on a 6%polyacrylamide/urea denaturing gel and visualized by autoradiography.

Fungal Toxin Resistance Assay

To determine the resistance of transgenic tobacco plants to fungaltoxins, a sensitive seed germination assay was adopted. MS medium (cat.# 11117-066 GibcoBRL) with 30 g/l sucrose containing DAS or DON wassolidified in petri dishes (100×15 mm, VWR) with agar. Tobacco seedswere surface sterilized with 50% bleach containing 0.1% Triton-X-100 for10 min., rinsed with sterile water three times and distributed onto thepetri dishes with MS medium. Dishes were incubated under 16/8 hrlight/dark cycle at 25° C. The germination of the seeds and the growthof the seedlings were recorded, and the root length was measured aftersix weeks.

Virus Resistance Test

To assess the resistance of transgenic tobacco plants to plant viruses,two leaves were sprayed with carborandum and mechanically inoculatedwith 2 μg/ml tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) in phosphate buffered saline(PBS) solution. The plants were grown in the same conditions as above.Subsequently the local lesion numbers were recorded 5 days after theinoculation.

Northern Blot to Detect the Expression of PR Proteins

Pathogenesis related (PR) proteins have been associated with plantdefense mechanisms (Ryals et al., Plant Cell 8:1809-1819 (1996); andZoubenko et al., Nature Biotechnol. 15:992-996 (1997)). Total RNAs wereextracted from tobacco leaves by TRIzol® Reagent (Invitrogen) accordingto the manufacturer. They were electrophoresed in denaturing formamideagarose gel and transferred to Stratagene Duralose-UV membrane bycapillary action overnight. Tobacco basic chitinase cDNA was labelledwith ³²P-dCTP by Pharmacia Ready-To-Go™ (#27-9240-01). DNA LabellingBeads were used to probe the expression of basic chitinase.

Real-Time Quantitative PCR

Total RNA was isolated from tobacco leaves using TRIzol® Reagent(Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer. SuperScript™ reversetranscriptase (Invitrogen) and oligo d(T) were used to produce thefirst-strand cDNA which was then applied to real-time PCR usinggene-specific primers with ABI PRISM 7000SDS (Applied Biosystems). Therelative expression levels of genes were calculated as ddCT (Livak andSchmitgen, 2001) using the expression of tobacco tubulin as an internalcontrol.

Results

Integration and Expression of L3 and PAP in Transgenic Tobacco Plants

Several NPTII positive transgenic tobacco (N. tabacum NN) lines,containing NT250 (L3), and NT252 (L3Δ100) were identified by ELISA forthe NPTII gene expression. The integration of L3 was confirmed by PCR(FIG. 2A.). The integration of L3Δ100 was confirmed by Southern blottingof the PCR products with L3Δ100-specific primers (FIG. 2C.). All ofthese transgenic plants were phenotypically normal and indistinguishablefrom wild type plants based on their appearance and growthcharacteristics. However, immunoblot analysis with yeast L3 specificmonoclonal antibody revealed undetectable levels of L3 and L3L100 genes.

A total of 12 transgenic tobacco plants (N. tabacum NN) transformed withboth wild type (wt) L3 and wt PAP (NT243) were identified by ELISA forNPTII. The transformation frequency, defined as the number of transgenicplants obtained per initial leaf disk times 100, was approximately 24%.The presence of both L3 and PAP genes were confirmed by PCR analysis(FIGS. 2A. and B.). However, immunoblot assay using monoclonalantibodies against yeast L3 did not detect expression of the yeast L3 intransgenic tobacco plants. The immunoblot analysis of the primary (R0)transgenic plants containing NT243 showed varied levels of PAPexpression, with NT243-7 and NT243-9 as the highest expressers (FIG.3A.). Only these two plants showed mottled symptoms on their leavessimilar to transgenic plants expressing the toxic variant form of PAP(PAPv, 26139-19) (Lodge et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:7089-7093(1993)). NT243-7 and NT243-9, however, did not produce any viable seeds.The other plants appeared normal compared to untransformed plants. ThePAP expression level in NT243-6 and NT243-8 plants was much lowercompared to NT243-7 and NT243-9. None of the other transgenic plantstested showed detectable PAP expression. Immunoblot analysis performedon R2 generation plants from NT243-6 and NT243-8 demonstrated aconsiderable amount of PAP expression (FIG. 3B.), yet these plantsappeared normal.

Several transgenic tobacco plants (N. tabacum nn) were generated withNT245, which contained both L3Δ100 and PAP genes. These plants were allphenotypically indistinquishable from the wild type plants. PCR andSouthern blot analysis confirmed the presence of both genes in thetransgenic plants (FIGS. 2B. and C.). While Western blot analysis didnot reveal detectable levels of L3Δ100, PAP was expressed at high levelsin all the plants tested, in contrast to the PAP expression in NT243plants (FIG. 3C.).

Depurination Assay

Ribosomal RNA depurination assay by primer extension clearly showed thatthe rRNAs from the R2 plants of NT243 (L3+PAP) were depurinated by theconstitutively expressed wild type PAP (FIG. 4, lane 7, NT243-64).However, depurination by wt PAP in these plants did not seem to affectthe morphology of the plants or the viability of the seeds. PAP wasexpressed at very high levels in NT243-7 and NT243-9, which showedmosaic symptoms and did not produce seeds. The symptoms observed onthese plants and their inability to produce seed may have been due tothe higher level of depurination in these two plants. In contrast to theNT243 lines, rRNA in the R2 plants of NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) was notdepurinated (FIG. 4, lanes 5 and 6). However, when the ribosomes ofNT245 R2 plants were isolated and treated with purified PAP in vitro(Hudak et al., J. Biol. Chem. 274:3859-3864 (1999)), the rRNAs weredepurinated. These results indicated that the S/R loop was not resistantto depurination by PAP in NT245 lines. While not intending to be boundby any particular theory of operation, Applicants believe that the yeastL3Δ100 gene interacts with PAP, rendering it inactive in terms ofdepurination, resulting in healthy plants.

Fungal Toxin Resistance Assay

With the sensitive seed germination assay, the optimum concentrations ofDON and DAS were determined by plating wild type tobacco seeds on the MSmedium containing different concentrations of DON or DAS. Based on thisanalysis, 1 μM of DAS and 10 μM of DON were selected as the lowestconcentrations that would give the best inhibition of wild type tobaccoseed growth. Muhitch et al., Plant Science 157:201-207 (2000) have shownthat DON is far more inhibitory than DAS toward wheat. When transgenictobacco seeds were plated on the MS medium containing 1 μM of DAS, NT250plants transformed with only yeast L3 were highly resistant to thistrichothecene fungal toxin (FIG. 5). The resistance level as measured bythe average root length of 10 plants, was almost as high as 4-foldcompared to wild type tobacco plants. NT243 plants transformed with bothL3 and PAP were equally resistant to DAS as NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) plants,while transgenic tobacco plants expressing PAPv (Lodge et al., Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:7089-7093 (1993) and NT252 expressing L3Δ100alone were also resistant to DAS but at a relatively lower level.

When transgenic tobacco seeds were plated on the MS medium containing 10μM of DON, all transgenic plants including PAPv, NT250 (L3), NT252(L3Δ100), NT243 (L3+PAP) and NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) exhibited resistance toDON compared to wild type plants (FIG. 6). L3Δ100 plus PAP plants(NT245) showed the greatest resistance to DON, almost as high as 4-foldcompared to wild type tobacco plants.

These data showed that yeast L3 or L3Δ100 alone in transgenic tobaccoplants conferred considerable resistance to trichothecene Fusariumtoxins DAS and DON. The combination of L3Δ100 with PAP conferred betterresistance to DON than either gene alone.

Virus Resistance Assay

Five days after inoculation with TMV, the local lesion numbers on theleaves of NT250 (L3), and NT252 (L3Δ100) transgenic plants were similarto the untransformed plants (data not shown) indicating that L3 andL3Δ100 genes alone in transgenic plants did not confer resistance toplant virus. However, FIG. 7 shows that the local lesion numbers of TMVon the R1 plants of NT243 (L3+PAP)-6 and NT243-8 were significantlylower compared to the wild type tobacco. This indicates that theinteraction between L3 and PAP significantly reduced the toxicity of PAPin NT243 plants, yet retained the antiviral characteristic of PAP.

ELISA results (data not shown) showed that NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) R2 plantsinoculated with PVY contained almost same amount of virus as theinoculated wild type plants. This seems to suggest that the interactionbetween the 99 amino acids at N-terminus of yeast L3 and PAP completelyabolished the toxicity of PAP as shown by all normal-looking transgenicplants, but did not retain the antiviral activity of PAP as in NT243(L3+PAP) plants.

Expression of PR Proteins in Transgenic NT243 (L3+PAP) Plants

Northern blot analysis (FIG. 8) revealed that prior to inoculation ofTMV, the R1 plants of NT243-6 and NT243-8 did not show any accumulationof tobacco basic chitinase. The basic chitinase level in thesetransgenic plants was detectable only after they were inoculated withTMV, same as wild type plants. This is contrary to a previous finding inthat the expression of PAPv (26139-19 line) constitutively induced theexpression of the basic isoform of tobacco PR proteins (Zoubenko et al.,Nature Biotechnol. 15:992-996 (1997)). Again, without intending to bebound by theory, this result suggests that the interaction between L3and PAP seemed to have disrupted the induced disease resistance pathwayas in PAPv (26139-19) transgenic plants, and that the viral resistanceof NT243 plants may have come from the direct depurination of infectingviruses.

Expression of Tobacco L3A and L3B by Real-Time PCR

The gene expression level of tubulin was assessed and appeared to berelatively constant in all the plants (data not shown). Therefore it wasused as an internal control for the calculation of the “fold expression”of transgenic plants compared to wild type tobacco. The real-timequantitative PCR results (FIGS. 9A. and B.) showed that the geneexpression levels of L3A and L3B were enhanced in all the transgenicplants including PAPv, NT250 (L3), NT252 (L3Δ100), NT243 (L3+PAP) andNT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) compared to wt plants. PAPv plants displayed thehighest level of gene expression in both L3A and L3B. The NT252 linesshowed relatively higher elevation of both L3A and L3B gene expressioncompared to the rest of the transgenic lines. Western blot result of thecytosolic samples with tobacco L3 polyclonal antibody (FIG. 9C.)confirmed the real-time PCR data. These seemed to correlate slightlywith the resistance level of these transgenic plants to fungal toxins.As in FIG. 6, PAPv demonstrated higher resistance to DON compared to theother transgenic lines and wild type plants, except NT245 lines. Theseresults suggested that the elevated levels of L3A and L3B in transgenictobacco plants might provide excessive targets for the fungal toxins,resulting in the resistance to DON and DAS tested.

Discussion

The observation that 12 transgenic NT243 (L3+PAP) tobacco plants wereregenerated with a transformation frequency of 24% and the majority ofplants appeared normal indicated an amazing difference from previouslyreported data in which the transformation frequency with wild type PAP(pMON8443) was only 0.7% (Lodge et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA90:7089-7093 (1993)). This clearly demonstrated that the interactionbetween L3 and PAP existed at the transgene level in transgenic tobaccoplants. In addition, this interaction was exhibited not only between thewild type L3 gene, but also between the truncated L3 with the N-terminal100 amino acids, because all the transgenic plants containing NT245(L3Δ100+PAP) appeared indistinguishable from the non-transgenic plants.

The gene expression level of both L3 and L3Δ100 was undetectable at theprotein level in transgenic plants expressing L3 alone or together withPAP (NT243/L3+PAP, NT245/L3Δ100+PAP, NT250/L3 and NT252/L3Δ100).However, the expression level of either L3 or L3Δ100 could be detectedby real-time PCR (FIG. 10A.). L3Δ100 in NT252. plants showed more than1000-fold higher level of gene expression relative to the wild typeplant. L3 expression levels in NT250 were 100- to 200-fold higherrelative to that in wild type plant. Comparatively, the gene expressionof L3 and L3Δ100 in NT243 (L3+PAP) and NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) was muchlower, from 25- to 38-fold. The expression level of PAP in NT243(L3+PAP) coincided with the severity of the mottling symptoms just asPAPv (26139-19) plants, resulting in sterility of the highest expressers(NT243-7 and NT243-9). Depurination assay showed that the low levelexpression of PAP in NT243-6 and NT243-8 plants still resulted in thedisruption of some tobacco ribosomes, but it did not seem to have mucheffect on the growth of these plants and the production of their seeds.The PAP expression level in NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) plants, however, was veryhigh in every plant. The PAP gene expression level in NT245-12 was evenhigher than PAPx, the non-depurinating active site mutant. And all NT245plants were normal looking and fertile. Depurination assay indicatedthat the rRNAs of NT245 plants were not depurinated (FIG. 4). Itdemonstrated that the full-length yeast L3 in NT243 plants atundetectable protein level greatly reduced the toxicity of PAP, whileL3Δ100 in NT245 also at undetectable protein level completely abolishedthe toxicity of PAP. This seemed to indicate the difference between theinteraction of L3 and L3Δ100 with PAP and show that L3Δ100 works betterthan the full length L3 gene. In addition, the effect of L3 and L3Δ100on PAP seems to be at the transcription level for the L3 and L3Δ100genes verses the translation level for PAP. L3Δ100 comprises of thefirst 100 amino acids of yeast ribosomal protein L3. It has been shownto exert a trans-dominant effect on promoting the programmed −1ribosomal frameshifting of the L-A double-stranded RNA virus andreducing the translation fidelity in yeast (Peltz et al., Mol. CellBiol. 19(1):384-91 (1999)). A previous study in yeast showed that wildtype L3 is required for PAP to bind to ribosomes and depurinate the 25SrRNA (Hudak et al., J. Biol. Chem. 274:3859-3864 (1999)). By studyingPAP mutants, domains of PAP that are involved in toxicity to yeast cellshave been identified. These domains can be separated from thedepurination property of PAP (manuscript submitted). Again, withoutintending to be bound by theory, Applicants believe that L3counter-interacts with the toxicity domains of PAP, and thiscounter-interaction is more specific for L3Δ100 than for L3.

The interaction between L3 and PAP in NT243 also disrupted the inductionof one of the tobacco PR proteins, basic chitinase, as was previouslyobserved in PAPv (26139-19) plants (Zoubenko et al., Nature Biotechnol.15:992-996 (1997)). Therefore, the resistance to TMV of these plantsmight have resulted from the direct depurination or inhibition ofinfecting virus by the low level of PAP. The interaction between L3Δ100and PAP in NT245 resulted in non-depurinating PAP and susceptibility ofplants to PVY, although the PAP expression level was very high in theseplants as demonstrated by Western blot of the cytosolic extracts (FIG.3C.), real-time PCR analysis (FIG. 10B.) and Western blot on theribosomal samples (FIG. 10C.).

The results have shown that all transgenic tobacco plants were resistantto trichothecene fungal toxins DAS and DON, with NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) asthe most resistant lines to DON. To investigate the mechanism of fungaltoxin resistance in the transgenic plants, the levels of tobaccoribosomal proteins L3A and L3B, which are the targets for fungal toxins,were analyzed by real-time PCR (FIGS. 9A. and B.). The levels of L3A andL3B in transgenic tobacco plants expressing PAPv were both elevated by2- to 3-fold compared to wild type plants. The L3A and L3B in NT250(L3), NT252 (L3Δ100) and NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) were elevated at much lesserlevels, ranging from 0.5- to 2-fold. Again, without intending to bebound by theory, Applicants postulate that the fungal toxin resistancein 26139-19, NT250, NT252, and NT245 may have resulted from the elevatedlevels of L3A and L3B, which provided excessive targets for toxins andhenceforth overcame the toxic effects. The levels of L3A and L3B mighthave been elevated by wild type L3, L3Δ100 and PAPv genes. Thiselevation might have been at the post-transcriptional level becausethese three genes were hardly detectable at the protein level in NT250(L3), NT252 (L3Δ100), NT243 (L3+PAP), NT245 (L3Δ100+PAP) and PAPvplants. In addition, NT245 plants demonstrated the highest fungal toxinresistance although the L3A and L3B levels were not as high as they werein PAPv or in NT252-11 (FIGS. 9A. and B.). Again, without intending tobe bound by theory, Applicants hypothesize that in these plants, bothyeast L3Δ100 and wt PAP bound to the tobacco ribosomes in a way that theribosomes were shielded from the fungal toxins.

This study has shown that NT243 expressing both low levels of wild typeyeast L3 and wild type PAP conferred resistance to fungal toxins DAS andDON and TMV. NT245 expressing yeast L3Δ100 and PAP, NT250 expressing L3and NT252 expressing L3Δ100 provided great resistance to fungal toxins.The results of this study demonstrate that by altering ribosomal proteinL3, the target of fungal toxins and combining it with PAP, relativelyhigh levels of resistance to trichothecene mycotoxins was obtained.

Interaction of Yeast L3 with Pokeweed Antiviral Protein (PAP) in YeastCells

Expression of the Yeast L3Δ100 and L3Δ99 Reduces the Cytotoxicity of PAPin Yeast

In the following examples, we show here that co-expression of atruncated form of yeast L3 (L3Δ100) which encodes the first 100 aminoacids of L3 with wild type PAP in transgenic tobacco plants eliminatesthe autoregulation of PAP expression, ribosome depurination andcytotoxicity of PAP. Expression of the endogenous tobacco ribosomalprotein L3 is upregulated in the transgenic lines and they are resistantto the Fusarium mycotoxins, DON and DAS. The L3Δ100 is much moreeffective in conferring resistance to PAP and the trichothecenemycotoxins than the full length L3 gene because expression of the fulllength L3 gene from yeast in transgenic tobacco plants does notcompletely eliminate the autoregulation of PAP expression, ribosomedepurination and the cytotoxicity of PAP, but reduces it. AlthoughL3Δ100 expressed in plants does not contain the tcm-1 mutation (W255C)or the (P257T) mutation found in mak8-1, which protect ribosomes fromdepurination by PAP, it is highly effective in preventing ribosomedepurination, mRNA autoregulation and cytotoxicity of PAP. Co-expressionof the first 99 amino acids of L3 with wild type PAP in yeast eliminatesthe autoregulation of PAP expression, ribosome depurination andcytotoxicity of PAP.

We also show that L3Δ99, that includes the first 99 amino acids of L3,works better in yeast than the L3Δ100. These results demonstrate thatexpression of an N-terminal fragment of L3 leads to high level ofresistance to PAP and DON, providing evidence that both toxins targetL3.by a common mechanism.

The polynucleotides encoding that first 100 or 99 amino acids at theN-terminus of yeast L3 gene were cloned in the yeast expression vectorpAC55 under GAL1 promoter on a URA3 plasmid, resulting in NT760 (L3Δ100)and NT771 (L3Δ99), respectively. Both NT760 and NT771 wereco-transformed into yeast cells together with NT188 containing the wildtype PAP gene in a yeast expression vector under the GAL1 promoter withLEU2 marker. Transformants were selected on SD -leu-ura media. Thepresence of both L3A genes and PAP gene in each transformant wasconfirmed by isolating the plasmids from yeast cells and re-transforminginto E. coli cells.

The cytotoxicity of PAP in yeast containing NT760 and NT188 was notaffected since they did not grow on plates containing galactose (FIG.20). However, the cytotoxicity of PAP in yeast containing NT771 andNT188 was abolished in three out of four transformants (FIG. 20).Immunoblot analysis showed that there was an equivalent amount of PAPproduced in cells containing NT760 and NT188 cells as the cellscontaining NT188 alone (FIG. 21). In contrast, there was significantlymore PAP protein produced in cells containing NT771 and NT188(transformants 5 and 6) (FIG. 21). These results indicated that L3Δ99could reduce the toxicity of PAP much better than L3Δ100 in yeast.

To assess the level of rRNA depurination by PAP in yeast cells, totalRNAs from cells containing NT760/NT188 and NT771/NT188 were extractedand subjected to the dual-primer extension analysis. As shown in FIG.22A, ribosome depurination was reduced by approximately 80% in cellscontaining NT760 and NT188 compared to cells containing NT188 alone. Asshown in FIG. 22B, the depurination of rRNA was greatly reduced(transformants 3 and 4) or eliminated (transformants 5 and 6) in cellscontaining NT771 and NT188. These results showed that co-expression ofL3Δ99 with PAP eliminated the cytotoxicity of PAP.

Since there was a large amount of PAP produced in the non-toxicNT771/NT188 transformants 5 and 6, compared to the transformants 3 and 4(FIG. 21), PAP was extracted from each transformant using SuperFineSephadex G25 columns. The PAP proteins were then used in an in vitrodepurination assay by incubating PAP with ribosomes from the wild typecells. The rRNAs were then extracted and ribosome depurination wasanalyzed by the dual-primer extension assay. As shown in FIG. 23, PAPprotein extracted from transformants 3 and 4 could still depurinateribosomes in vitro. In contrast, PAP protein isolated from transformants5 and 6 could not depurinate the ribosomes in vitro.

Yeast L3Δ99 Abolishes the Autoregulation of PAP Gene Expression andEnhances the Stability of PAP mRNA.

To determine if PAP destabilizes its own mRNA in cells containing NT771and NT188, we used real-time PCR analysis with ABI PRISM 7000 SequenceDetection System (Applied Biosystems) to examine the mRNA levels intransformants 3, 4, 5 and 6 after induction on galactose for six hours.Reverse transcription reaction was carried out using the total yeastRNAs as templates and oligo d(T) as the primer. The single strandedcDNAs produced were used in real-time PCR analysis using twoPAP-specific primers (PAP690F, 5′-GGGTAAGATTTCAACAGCAATTCA-3′ andPAP769R, 5′-CACCACTGGCATCCACTAGCT-3′). The PAP gene expression level wasnormalized against the yeast G6PD mRNA as an internal control using theddCT method. It is shown in FIG. 24 that PAP mRNA in transformants 3.and4 accumulated to the highest level at 4 hr after induction and thengradually declined. This PAP gene expression pattern was exactly thesame as in yeast expressing NT188, which destabilizes its own mRNA. Incontrast, the PAP mRNA level in transformants 5 and 6 increased up tosix hours and did not decrease after 6 hours of galactose induction.This expression pattern was similar to what was observed with the activesite mutant NT224 (PAPX) which does not autoregulate its own mRNA, i.e.,the stability of PAPx mRNA is not affected. These results indicate thatL3Δ99 diminishes the effect of PAP on its own mRNA, resulting instabilization of PAP mRNA.

Effect of the First 21 Amino Acids of L3.

The 5′ end of L3 mRNA contains a stem loop structure highly similar tothe SRL of rRNA (FIG. 25). The sequence “14AGUACGA20” in the L3 mRNAstem loop is identical to the sequence of the sarcin ricin loop (SRL)“AGUACGAGAGGA”, which is the longest conserved sequence found in alllarge rRNAs. Since PAP binds to the SRL, this sequence in L3 may act asan SRL mimic and PAP may bind to it and destabilize the L3Δ mRNA insteadof its own mRNA. To test this, a polynucleotide encoding the first 21amino acids of yeast L3 was cloned into pTKB175 under the GAL1 promoter(NT803). NT803 was co-transformed into yeast cells with NT188. As shownin FIG. 26, all four transformants containing NT803 and NT188 grewbetter on galactose. This indicates that the first 21 amino acids mayhave similar effect on PAP's toxicity as L3Δ99.

All publications cited in the specification, both patent publicationsand non-patent publications, are indicative of the level of skill ofthose skilled in the art to which this invention pertains. All thesepublications are herein incorporated by reference to the same extent asif each individual publication were specifically and individuallyindicated as being incorporated by reference.

Although the invention herein has been described with reference toparticular embodiments, it is to be understood that these embodimentsare merely illustrative of the principles and applications of thepresent invention. It is therefore to be understood that numerousmodifications may be made to the illustrative embodiments and that otherarrangements may be devised without departing from the spirit and scopeof the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

1. A transgenic plant comprising an exogenous nucleic acid comprising atransgene functional therein and that encodes a polypeptide having atleast the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of afull-length eucaryotic L3 protein, or an analog of said polypeptide,wherein said plant exhibits increased resistance to toxins that targeteucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to a non-transgenic controlplant.
 2. The transgenic plant of claim 1, wherein the transgene encodesa polypeptide having from the first 21 to 99 N-terminal amino acidresidues of a full-length ribosomal L3 protein.
 3. The transgenic plantof 1, the transgene encodes a polypeptide having amino acids 1-99 of aeucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein.
 4. The transgenic plant of claim 1,wherein the transgene encodes a polypeptide having amino acids 1-100 ofa eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein.
 5. The transgenic plant of claim 1,wherein the transgene encodes a polypeptide having amino acids 1-21 of aeucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein.
 6. The transgenic plant of claim 1,wherein the transgene is a first transgene, and wherein said exogenousnucleic acid further comprises a second transgene that encodes aribosome inactivating protein (RIP) that targets a eurcaroytic L3ribosomal protein.
 7. The transgenic plant of claim 6 wherein saidsecond transgene encodes Pokeweed Antiviral Protein (PAP)-v.
 8. Thetransgenic plant of claim 6, wherein the second transgene encodeswild-type PAP.
 9. The transgenic plant of claim 6, wherein the secondtransgene encodes PAP-II.
 10. The transgenic plant of claim 6, whereinthe second transgene encodes ricin or a Shiga toxin.
 11. The transgenicplant of claim 1, which is a monocot plant.
 12. The transgenic plant ofclaim 1, which is a cereal crop plant.
 13. The transgenic plant of claim12, wherein the cereal crop plant is maize, rice, wheat, oat, barley orwheat.
 14. The transgenic plant of claim 1, which is a dicot plant. 15.Seed derived from-the transgenic plant of claim
 1. 16. Seed derived fromthe transgenic plant of claim
 6. 17. A method of making a transgenicplant having increased resistance to infestation by fungi that producetoxins that target a eurcaryotic L3 protein, comprising preparing atransgenic plant having a genome that contains an exogenous nucleic acidcomprising a transgene encoding a polypeptide having at least the first21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residues of a full-lengtheucaryotic L3 protein or an analog thereof, wherein expression of thetransgene in the transgenic plant confers increased resistance to toxinsthat target a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein compared to anon-transgenic control plant.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein saidpreparing a transgenic plant comprises transforming a protoplast from acell of a plant with the exogenous nucleic acid to produce a transformedprotoplast, and generating the transgenic plant from the transformedprotoplast.
 19. The method of claim 17, wherein said preparing atransgenic plant comprises introducing the exogenous nucleic acid intotissue of a plant to produce transformed plant tissue, and regeneratingthe transgenic plant from the transformed plant tissue.
 20. A method ofmaking a transgenic plant having resistance to infestation by fungi thatproduce toxins that target a eurcaryotic L3 protein, comprisingpreparing a transgenic plant having a genome that contains a firstexogenous nucleic acid having a first transgene encoding a polypeptidehaving at least the first 21 to about 99 N-terminal amino acid residuesof a full-length eucaryotic L3 protein or an analog thereof, and asecond exogenous nucleic acid having a second transgene encoding an RIPprotein that targets a eucaryotic ribosomal L3 protein, whereinexpression of the first and second transgenes in the transgenic plantconfers increased resistance to the fungi, and with less toxicity to theplant compared to a transgenic control plant that contains the secondtransgene but does not contain the first transgene.